From the beginning it has been clear that Barack Obama failed the “natural born citizenship” requirement of the Constitution to be President of the United States.

The question of his birth-certificate being a forgery simply adds to the problems he faces.
If the Obama birth-certificate proves to be forged those who unfortunately decided to help him in his cause are apparently ignorant of the outcome if caught.

Under Section title 18 chapter 228 section 3592 the penalty for HIGH TREASON IS DEATH.
A forgery of the Barack Obama birth-certificate will be deemed “causing grave risk to national security”.

Article II Facts

For a couple of years now the “natural born citizenship” issue has been my political hot topic.

From reading the founding documents it is pretty clear what the term “natural born citizen” means.
A child born under US jurisdiction of two (2) citizen parents.

Why no one in the Government has addressed it in regards to Barack Obama was the question.

Still today the media, primary candidates, political elites BOTH SIDES avoid the subject like the plague.

Is it ignorance or an agenda that drives them?

A big part of the public appear to be stuck in the limbo of “well if this was a real issue why is NO ONE IMPORTANT addressing it”?

I want to drop dead of fatigue when anyone asks that question.
Hell I don’t know!
I could give you about a hundred guesses that probably are accurate somewhere with part of those in charge.

Anyway the bottom line is this issue will not fade into the sunset.
Not as long as there are people who REALLY WANT to abide by the Constitution.

So no matter what the outcome of the Georgia case might be … the fight now moves into Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

Part of the public is becoming educated.
We all have questions that NEED TO BE LEGALLY sorted out.
Yet SCOTUS remains silent.
WHY?
Are they waiting for Obama to get out of office before they take on the case?
It will reach them sometime for sure.
There literally is not wiggle room for them to go against the founding documents.
The only change that could happen is an amendment to the Constitution.
Perhaps we need that for the future.
None of that bails Obama out of his dilemma he is what he is … a simple “citizen” IF THAT.

The problem for those making the judgments now? They are hooking themselves to treason against the country if they rule wrong. The states are responsible for saying who is eligible to get on the ballot and who is not. They were caught off guard in 2008. Today they are not. They play Russian Roulette with their own futures.

The seriousness of this issue just got kicked up a notch.
Those in charge of vetting Obama have now been thrust into the middle of a dilemma that better be thought out well before decisions are made.
Asses are quickly being dragged into the line of fire.
Who is going to pass go and collect $200 and who is liable to be brought up on charges for dereliction of duty? With a TREASON LABEL and penalty attached.

Definitely an interesting process to watch.

Article II Facts

As much as Obama supporters or the US citizen ignorant of the “NBC” definition want to bury their heads in the sand … that pesky little issue of “natural born citizenship” WILL NOT GO AWAY.

Nor will it until it finally creeps its way into the Supreme Court for settlement.

For anyone willing to take the time to look into the congressional records of THAT TIME it is clear that “natural born citizen” is clearly defined as a child born IN THE US of PARENTS who are citizens thereof.

That very simple “term definition” from John Bingham (author of the 14th ammendment) found in … 39th Congress Senate and House Debates (December 4, 1865 to July 28, 1866) PP Page 961 of 1920 Page 1291.
Image of that page can be seen HERE.

That says: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

Anyone looking at that definition WITHOUT BIAS understands it to mean BORN IN THE USA OF TWO (2) CITIZEN PARENTS.

Now it can be argued until the cows come home IF, IF, IF or WHY, MAYBE? … and has been already.
Frankly I do not care who influenced who, how they arrived at or who just plucked the term out of the air.
I only care that they did and it was recorded in simple ENGLISH TEXT for those who can still understand BASIC ENGLISH.

I have yet to find any argument cropping up in Congressional records (for that period) which argues or redefines that specific term “natural born citizen”.

The movement being launched to keep Barack Obama off the official state ballots in election 2012 has began.
Rightfully Judge Michael Malihi has taken up the case, refused the Obama quash requests and ordered him to appear.

The door has now been cracked.
This hearing is a BIG DEAL!
WHY?

It was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. Obama never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.

WHAT A SURPRISE! Obama and his lawyer did not show up.
So now what?
Well the hearing went on without him.
Blow by blow results are below:

By Sharon Rondeau
The Post & Email (site is under maintenance at time of publishing; see The Post & Email for further details on this and other Obama eligibility cases, documentation, and history)

(Jan. 26, 2012) — The court convened at approximately 9:30 a.m. Judge Michael Malihi began by asking those present to stand and reading the last paragraph of Atty. Michael Jablonski’s letter to Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State, “into the record,” commenting that Jablonski was not present at the hearing.

The judge called plaintiff David Welden to stand and asked where he resided and if he were a registered voter in the state of Georgia. Then his attorney, Van Irion, stood and stated that there were three types of citizenship in the United States. He then provided argument on the definition of “natural born Citizen,” referring to Minor v. Happersett.

“The court should recognize that the term ‘citizen” is not ‘natural born Citizen,’ Irion said. “The Minor court’s definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ says ‘parents.’

“In closing, this case is about the Constitution,” Irion said. We’ve shown that Barack Obama’s father was never a citizen…and that means he is not constitutionally qualified…Finally, the defendant was ordered to be here, and I wish to state on the record that that shows not just a contempt for this court…”

Then Irion was interrupted and stopped speaking.

9:54 a.m.: Atty. J. Mark Hatfield stood and stating that he represents Kevin Richard Powell and Carl Swensson. Hatfield mentioned the White House schedule as he saw that it related to Obama’s lack of attendance at the hearing.

Carl Swensson was sworn in at 9:56 a.m. and stated his residence and county. Then Kevin Powell was asked the same. Both were asked if they were able to vote for President of the United States.

Swensson and Powell explained their challenges filed with the Secretary of State’s office to the judge.

Hatfield held up the Certification of Nomination which Nancy Pelosi signed in 2008 to place Obama’s name on the ballot. The judge asked if it was a “certified copy,” and Hatfield answered that it was. He then read from it, stating that it did not affirm that the candidates met constitutional requirements to serve, while the wording from the Republican National Committee for its candidates did contain that wording.

The judge asked if the documents were from a “United States government source,” and Hatfield answered “Yes, sir, they were.”

Hatfield cited Jablonski’s January 25 letter “indicating that they did not want the proceedings to go forward and did not want to participate.” Hatfield also entered into evidence Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father.

Ken Allen, a resident of Arizona, stood to present the documentation he had received from the State Department after submitting a FOIA request early in 2009, which The Post & Email reported on here. He stated that “Barack Obama Sr.” was “never a citizen.”

At 10:09 a.m. someone said, “Let’s take a short break,” and people stood up and began moving around and talking with one another.

At 10:17 a.m., the court was called back in to order.

Atty. Orly Taitz was called upon to speak. The Georgia registered voter whom she represents, David Farrar, stood and identified himself.

Taitz utilized a projector on the wall to the right of the judge as an aid in her presentation. She then stated that evidence existed that Obama possessed Indonesian citizenship, to which the judge was heard by this writer to say, “That’s not relevant.” Taitz then discussed the court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett and was interrupted by the judge, who said, “Counselor, can you save your argument for the closing?” She then stopped speaking.

Mr. Christopher Strunk of New York then went up to the front of the courtroom to testify, and Taitz began to ask him questions about the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, one of which contains the name “Soebarkah.” Strunk stated, “She wanted that expunged from her record, but we never got that.”

Susan Daniels, Private Investigator from Ohio, then took the stand, and spoke about her investigation which revealed that Obama had reportedly been using a social security number which she contended had not been assigned to him.

Taitz asked Daniels, “What was the social security number attached to your request?” and Daniels read off “042-68-4425.” Daniels said, “In all my years, I’ve never seen anything like this.” She stated that the person who had originally owned the number had been born in 1890.

“First I ran the social security number to check the address, and the same number came up for him in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC. It showed a phone number, and it was always the same number…It would show intermittently ‘August 4, 1961′ and ’1890.’” Daniels stated that she obtained information “directly from the Social Security Administration.”

At 10:30 Mr. Chito Papa took the stand. He stated that he works in the field of Information Technology including Adobe® software.

Taitz asked Papa if the “birth certificate” which “Obama posted online” had flattened layers. ”Did you see one layer or multiple layers? Taitz asked. ”I saw multiple layers,” he answered.

Taitz asked Papa about Obama’s social security number which appeared on his tax return posted on the internet, and Papa stated that the layers had not been flattened. Taitz then thanked Papa for his testimony.

At 10:36 a.m. another witness, Linda Jordan, was called to the stand. Taitz adjusted her Powerpoint presentation by means of a laptop computer and began by asking a question about “E-Verify,” the U.S. government’s system for flagging potential illegal immigrants from working. Jordan stated that she ran Obama’s number through the E-Verify system and said, “When I read it, it was 2011, and it could not verify it. It came back.”

At 10:39 a.m., Douglas Vogt took the stand. Vogt stated that he owns a typesetting company and has been “in the business for 18 years now.”

Taitz asked Vogt if he examined the birth certificate which was posted online, and he said, “Yes, I did.” He stated that “sloping lines” would not be seen if the image had been made from a paper document.

Taitz asked, “Would you expect to see a clear embossed seal on the document?” and Vogt answered, “Yes, I would.” However, he stated that such was not present on Obama’s birth certificate. Regarding the number of Obama’s purported birth record, Vogt stated that “federal regs” require that “all birth certificate numbers have to be sequential, starting on January 1.”

At 10:49, witness John Sampson took the stand. He stated that he has a background in criminal justice, served as a police officer in New York City and worked as an immigration inspector. His background includes working for the INS in the area of “immigration fraud” and he was also a deportation officer. He stated that he has testified in front of “federal grand juries.” He stated that he started his own consulting firm in 2009 and has been self-employed since then.

Taitz asked Sampson about Obama’s social security number, and Sampson said that he “ran” the number 042-68-4425 and that it was assigned to Obama since 1977.

Taitz asked if Sampson had examined the birth certificate, and he said, “Yes.” He raised the issue of the Nordyke twins’ birth certificate, whose numbers were lower than Obama’s even though their birth occurred a day later. He stated that the registrar’s name was different than that on the Nordyke twins’ documents and that it was unlikely that the registrar would have been different in the “same hospital” regarding births one day apart.

Sampson recommended further investigation, including subpoenas and court orders, to obtain more information on the number “042-68-4425.”

Sampson mentioned that Obama has also been known as “Barry Soetoro.”

Taitz asked what Sampson thought needed to be done regarding the questions about Obama’s background, and he recommended asking for an official copy of the SS-5 for his social security number application and the Hawaii Department of Health to see “if he was born in Hawaii.” Sampson stated that an investigation would be “a criminal investigation” through a U.S. attorney’s office. He said that if a person has been found to be impersonating a U.S. citizen, he would be subject to “deportation.”

Shortly thereafter, Sampson’s testimony ended, and Taitz began discussing Obama’s alleged years in Indonesia from 1968-71, during which he was known as “Barry Soetoro.”

“We have another boy who from 1968-69 was in Hawaii,” she said. The judge then said, “Are you testifying? Do you know how?” which brought laughter from the assembly. The judge then said she could discuss the matter during closing arguments. Taitz responded, “I would like to testify,” after which she took the stand.

Taitz stated that “Mr. Obama has resigned from the bar.” The judge asked, “How is that relevant?” Taitz said that it was pertinent because Obama was “hiding his identity.”

“I’m going to ask you to submit your testimony in writing,” the judge said. ”OK,” Taitz said. She then left the stand and spoke from the assembly once again. She stated that “We have clear evidence of fraud and forgery…Mr. Obama has used other last names…” She then stated that of all the lawsuits filed against Obama regarding his eligibility, none were heard on “the merits.” Taitz asked Judge Malihi to order the release of Obama’s records in Hawaii and to hold Obama in “contempt of court” for failing to appear at the hearing.

The judge said, “Thank you” and adjourned the court at 11:12 a.m.

Article II Facts

Looks like he is.
Apparently Barack Obama was never taught respect is earned it is not simply gifted TO ANYONE.

It has been pretty clear from the start Barack Obama is narcissistic.
Did he step into it this time with a strong finger pointing Governor taking issue with his thin skinned bad behavior over her book entry?
One willing to stand her ground?
Looks like!

Barack Obama knows how to do ONE THING.
CAMPAIGN.
He has done it non stop since he took oath of office.
Was he barked that ANYONE could possibly criticize him?

You might want to notice at 1:44 on the video Leslie Marshall thinks they are both smiling.
Smiling?
Looks like a cat spat to me but you be the judge.

Anyway this time around under the microscope of THE PEOPLE VIA THE INTERNET … no matter which way he squirms he will be caught on tape. The tape will go viral and he will over and over expose himself.

Fortunately with the abundance of video equipment out there nothing much will escape the internet blogosphere.

I resisted my urge to ignore the State of the Union Address by Barack Obama the other nite.
Thank heaven for DVR.

I have to admit it is easy to see how the American lemming herd could be mesmerized by Barack Obama.

To bad for him any of us paying attention to the actual state of this Union knew immediately every smooth word that flowed from his mouth was either delusion or duplicitous lies.

The thing that totally amazes me is Obama and followers use the EXACT SAME RHETORIC as the Republicans.
Only thing is OBAMA DOES NOT MEAN A WORD IT!

The light of the evening ended up being a speech made my Mitch Daniels.
Certainly worth a listen if you did not catch it then.

Obama WILL NOT SHOW UP!
He dares not show up.
So then what?

Article II Facts

From the transparent President who IS DEFINITELY NOT TRANSPARENT to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
Now that is a contrast that even the dullest dullard should be able to observe.

On one hand we have Barack Obama who has spent well over 2 million dollars and DAILY RISING to keep HIS RECORDS SEALED. Well except for his shady little house deal with buddy jailbird Tony Rezko. You remember that same Tony Rezko sentenced to 10 1/2 years of pen duty for a $9.6 million kickback scheme? Somehow before it could be covered up the Obama/Rezko real-estate deal escaped into public view. Illegal? Any charges for either of them?

On the other hand we have both Romney and Gingrich presenting their information for public scrutiny pretty darn quick. Today and tomorrow.

To this day it escapes me why someone would spend millions to HIDE INFORMATION if there WAS NOTHING TO HIDE?
Does anyone but me find this strange?

What does that really tell us about Barack Obama?
One of 2 things to me … he is an immature spoiled brat or has something serious to hide.
Perhaps both apply?

Obama slid in under “the scrutiny” radar in 2008.
Clearly the main stream media will ignore all of the Obama glaring issues. Past and present.

It falls on the heads of “we the people” to be diligent in keeping the Obama problems at the forefront of this election cycle.

Keep in mind “we the people” and our INTERNET VOICES are the TRUE POWER MEDIA of today.

So the question is ETHICS.
Who is and who is not ethical?
Now we can all look at the transparent Presidential hopefuls and decide for ourselves.
Where their business dealings unethical?
Were they illegal?
Were they both or none of the above?

Let’s drag this information out for the public to discuss and decide now before November 2012.

Let THE BEST MAN WIN!

Yesterday the Obama administration announced he was declining the Keystone XL pipeline application due to the Republicans setting an “unreasonable timeline” of February 21, 2012 for a decision. That George W. Bush, still causing problems for Obama!!! Obama wanted to put it off until after the 2012 elections so he could continue to draw campaign money from both sides. As it is now, he will only get money from the “environmental” nut cases unless the supporters of the pipeline are willing to pay him for a favorable decision after he gets re-elected in November (snicker!!!).

This decision has all the markings of his pledge before the 2008 election to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America. Remember when he said that he would bankrupt the coal companies and that energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket”? Here we are, a chance to keep that campaign pledge to his left wing zealots who want to see America become a Third world hell hole dictatorship. Remember when he closed off all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, ignored a court order to resume permits, and sent $4 billion to a George Soros invested company in Brazil so we could be “their best customer”?

As Obama once again applies his “laser focus on jobs” we see the prospect of 5,000 immediate jobs, 20,000 jobs over the next few years, and the potential 200,000 long term jobs fizzle in an orgy of pandering to his left-wing base. Of course, there is the magnificent prospect of the unemployment payments that will actually rescue our economy. This came from that paragon of economic brain trusts, Nancy Pelosi. Remember when she said that every dollar of unemployment payments generates $1.87 to the economy? That is very good news indeed. There certainly isn’t any sense in losing such an economic boost by providing thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of jobs. We once again see our country being taken down the road to financial ruin by those desiring to rule rather than govern. This is not new as we have seen what the radicals who have taken over the Democrat Party have been doing for several years.

Environmental groups opposed the pipeline saying it could harm the Oglala Reservoir under Nebraska. That is a huge concern to all of us I am sure. There is no doubt this pipeline will do as much damage to the environment as the Alaska Pipeline did to the tundra and the herds of deer, moose, elk and whatever. I have read many stories about the Alaska pipeline and the results of that coming “environmental disaster”. If I remember right, and I don’t have the stories before me, the herds are thriving because the heat from the pipeline is keeping the grass growing under it without damaging the permafrost. The food being provided by the vegetation in what was a total wasteland in winter, not to mention the heat off the pipes providing warmth for the herds, is actually increasing the numbers of animals.

The big question is what are the Republicans in Congress going to do about this situation? Yesterday we heard Republicans come out and denounce the decision with tough talk and big words, but will they actually do anything to reverse this decision? I have my doubts. As a matter of fact, I will be bold enough to say “No, they won’t!!!” The leadership in the Republican Party is so weak and so busy being “civil” and “reaching across the aisle to work with our Democrat friends” that I don’t expect them to do any more than they have done with the stimulus, TARP, debt ceiling, etc.

Unless We the People elect true conservatives in November we will continue to lose our freedoms daily. We used to lose a freedom here and there but now we see them disappearing in droves. It seems as if every piece of legislation that comes out, unread of course, takes another freedom away from us.
Obama and members of both political parties in Congress are combining to destroy what was once the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Our economic security, our physical security, and or liberty are all being taken from us by those who got elected by promising a better life for all Americans. If it isn’t already too late November will be the pivotal point of my lifetime. If we don’t make drastic changes, assuming Obama allows elections in November, we will lose what is left of our liberty.

We can’t just blindly vote for Republicans as they have proven to be unreliable, and as dangerous as Democrats. Only 22 of the 87 freshmen TEA Party members elected to the House of Representatives in 2010 voted against the debt ceiling increase last fall. If we have another freshman class like that in 2012 we are doomed to a lifetime of tyranny. Our future is at stake and the Keystone XL Pipeline permit denial is just one more nail in the coffin of the Republic of the United States of America.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell Claremore, Oklahoma January 18, 2011

Barack Obama given enough rope is slowly but surely hanging himself.
He is questionable everything.
He has little or no documented background, no documented valuable leadership skills.
Ask him to think quickly on his feet and you get stammer and stutter.

What a few knew about him in the beginning is finally spreading to those who were clueless or simply looking for someone OTHER THAN GEORGE BUSH.

Now even those who full throttle supported him are beginning to question what he is doing or not doing.

Thank you George for sending this reminder my way.

Just to remind you when President Obama starts to blame Bush for all our problems.
Then the main stream media picks up on the same rhetoric.
Then the forgetful citizens start to believe the BullS*** and pass it around AS FACT.

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in Jan 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this: January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the House:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day…

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie, starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for our economy. Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky really did fall!)

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? BARACK OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush…
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats had the gas pedal and steering wheel… They (the Democrats) were the ones driving the economy into the ditch.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2008-2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending since the War on Terror began. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself, and a Democratic Congress!

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th, 2009.“